On 09/26/2012 01:40 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>> Btw, on a slightly different note, I'm also rather surprised that the above
>> code doesn't care about the return value of chip->irq_set_affinity() ..
>> Shouldn't we warn if that fails?
>
> It seems another case when irq_set_affinity is NULL whene
> I know.. What I meant is, the code warns only if chip->irq_set_affinity
> is NULL and doesn't care if chip->irq_set_affinity was not NULL and
> the function failed to set the affinity (ie., when chip->irq_set_affinity()
> returns error). In other words, I meant to say that this is one more
> case
On 09/26/2012 01:47 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>> Shouldn't we warn if that fails?
> printk("Cannot set affinity for irq %i\n", irq);
> This is the warning when set affinity failed.
>
I know.. What I meant is, the code warns only if chip->irq_set_affinity
is NULL and doesn't care if chip->irq_set
> In that case, we would end up with an incorrect data->affinity right?
>
Moving the clean cpu mask code into if (chip->irq_set_affinity)?
Will resend the patch and will judge the chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity,
true)
return value.
> Shouldn't we warn if that fails?
printk("Cannot set affinity for irq %i\n", irq);
This is the warning when set affinity failed.
> Btw, on a slightly different note, I'm also rather surprised that the above
> code doesn't care about the return value of chip->irq_set_affinity() ..
> Shouldn't we warn if that fails?
It seems another case when irq_set_affinity is NULL whenever affinity is
changed or not before that,
For this
On 09/26/2012 12:22 PM, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
>>> + } else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, data->affinity))
>>> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, data->affinity);
>>>
>>
>> You meant to use 'affinity' (instead of data->affinity) in the above 2
>> statements
>> right? Note that we do
> > + } else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, data->affinity))
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, data->affinity);
> >
>
> You meant to use 'affinity' (instead of data->affinity) in the above 2
> statements
> right? Note that we do chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true); furt
On 09/26/2012 08:02 PM, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
>
> When one CPU is going offline, and fixup_irqs() will re-set the
> irq affinity in some cases, we should clean the offlining CPU from
> the irq affinity.
>
> The reason is setting offlining CPU as of the affinity is useless.
> Moreover, the smp_aff
9 matches
Mail list logo
